Roman Catholicism and Genesis

The Catholic Church’s belief about Genesis 1–11 has been in a muddle
for a long time—ever since uniformitarianism and evolution came on the scene.
This situation is similar to Protestant churches, sadly for both liberal and conservative
ones. Within the ‘traditionalist’ churches, this book is a welcome addition
to the book Genesis, Creation and Early Man by the Russian Orthodox heiromonk
Seraphim Rose,1 who documented
that the Church fathers of Eastern Orthodoxy from the fourth century until the present
almost all taught a young earth, a literal six-day creation, a global Flood, and
the origin of languages at the Tower of Babel. Warkulwiz’s book focuses on
the traditional teachings of the Catholic church from the early and medieval church
fathers and comes to the same conclusions. The book was endorsed with a foreword
by Bishop Robert Francis Vasa of Baker, Oregon.

Who is Fr Warkulwiz?

Fr Warkulwiz is well qualified to write such a book. Not only is he a Catholic priest,
but also he has a PhD in physics from Temple University and has worked in industry
for a number of years. He has taught science, philosophy, history, astronomy, logic,
chemistry, physics, mathematics and creationism versus evolution at Magdalen College
in the U.K. He entered the priesthood late in life and received an M.Div. and M.A.
in theology and was ordained in 1991. He is also theological reviewer for the Kolbe
Center for the Study of Creation,2
a Catholic young-earth creation organization.

About the book

Blending this diversity of fields, Fr Warkulwiz has written a 519 page book not
only on the scientific arguments for young-earth creationism, but also he has added
a lot of history, philosophy, and theology. The book consists of 16 doctrines derived
from Genesis 1–11, such as God created the world from nothing, God created
each thing in the world immediately, God created each living creature according
to its kind, God created the world in six natural days, God created the world several
thousand years ago, the whole human species descended form the first man and woman
and God destroyed the world that was with a worldwide Flood. He quotes extensively
from the early and medieval fathers of the church, especially Augustine, Aquinas
and Bonaventure. He drives home the main point that traditional Catholic teaching
has always been young-earth creationism. It is only under the influence
of the so-called Enlightenment that Catholic theologians and scholars have strayed.
The influence of evolution culminated in the teachings of Jesuit priest, Pièrre
Teilhard de Chardin, who mesmerized numerous Catholics to believe in evolution with
his ‘theological fiction’.

[Re light before the Sun’s creation on Day 4] Light is not tethered to a source.
Once a photon of light leaves its source it is free and has an existence of its
own. So modern physics has no problem with the idea that God created light without
a source.— Victor Warkulwiz

From his field of physics, Warkulwiz has some good insights into many supposed problems
of Genesis 1–11, for instance, he says in regard to the source of light for
the first three days:

‘A possible source for the light could have been chemical and nuclear reactions
in the raw matter of earth itself. But according to modern physics a source really
isn’t needed. Light is not tethered to a source. Once a photon of light leaves
its source it is free and has an existence of its own. So modern physics has no
problem with the idea that God created light without a source … ’ (p.
173).

Old-earthers make a huge issue out of the nature of light before the sun was created
on Day 4, trying to justify their old-age interpretation. It is as if God were powerless,
and there were no other alternatives.

Fr Warkulwiz understands the fallacy of the documentary hypothesis, which assumes
evolution, and which the Catholic Church borrowed from liberal Protestants. He sees
the problems with the big bang hypothesis for the origin of the universe and that
it contradicts the Bible. He strongly believes in the inerrancy of the Bible:

‘The principle of inerrancy is all-inclusive; it includes everything
the Bible says. To deny this and to allow Sacred Scripture to err even in some small
matter opens a Pandora’s box of skepticism that leads to the total discrediting
of God’s Word’ (pp. 12–13).

Church Fathers almost universally interpreted Genesis literally

The book adds much information that refutes the idea that the early church fathers
were wishy-washy on the subject of origins, suggesting a variety of possible ‘interpretations’
for Genesis 1–11. This is a point made by a number of modern opponents of
biblical creation such as the progressive creationist Hugh Ross3 and the theistic evolutionist Howard Van Till,4 who has subsequently apostatized—at
no great surprise to anyone who knew him.5

The principle of inerrancy is all-inclusive; it includes everything the Bible says.
To deny this and to allow Sacred Scripture to err even in some small matter opens
a Pandora’s box of skepticism that leads to the total discrediting of God’s
Word.— Victor Warkulwiz

It is true that Augustine and Aquinas seemed to have some unorthodox beliefs, but
often these Church fathers, as well as others, simply interpreted passages both
symbolically as well as literally. They were fond of adding a spiritual meaning
to events in Genesis 1–11, interpreted both individually and in terms of the
Church. They still believed in the literal meaning. Augustine did stray from a literal
six-day creation, but instead of believing in long ages, he believed creation took
place in only one day! Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini states that Augustine did explain
too many things figuratively which he later thought he should have taken more literally
(p. 166). Aquinas believed in spontaneous generation, as did most other scholars
of his time, but he also believed in created kinds. It is only by superficial analysis
of the writings of the Church fathers that some old-earthers and theistic evolutions
can claim that some early church fathers left the questions of origins open.

I was favourably impressed by some of the insights that the early Church fathers
had in regard to origins. Many of their ideas seemed modern. But at other times
it seems like they theologically hypothesized beyond the state of the evidence.
For instance some of the Church fathers believed that Adam and Eve lived in the
garden like sexless creatures (p. 304). Most of the time Fr Warkulwiz points out
these misinterpretation and mistakes, but other times he does not comment, which
leaves the impression that he believes some of these hypotheses.

Popes, cardinals and councils upheld a literal Genesis— until recently

Another interesting aspect of the book is that Fr Warkulwiz quotes several Church
councils, a few cardinals and a number of popes who reinforced the traditional Catholic
teaching on a literal Genesis. I was favourably impressed with the many statements
quoted. For instance, the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1909 rejected arguments
that denied the literal history of Genesis 1–3.

Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini points to the conclusion that Adam must have been specially
created because Eve was specially created from Adam’s side:

‘But if it is true, as the transformists are good enough to concede, that
the body of woman was formed directly by God and thus does not come by way of evolution,
who will be persuaded that man’s body, the virile sex, comes from the brute
beast? What an absurdity!’ (p. 269)

A few popes of recent times have made statements that seem to support evolution.
… such pronouncements are beyond the range of authority of the popes and
are not official church doctrine. Moreover, these popes are dependent upon their
scientific advisors, who have succumbed to evolution, an old Earth, and the Big
Bang.

However, a few popes of recent times have made statements that seem to support evolution.
Warkulwiz states that such pronouncements are beyond the range of authority
of the popes and are not official church doctrine. Moreover, these popes are dependent
upon their scientific advisors, who have succumbed to evolution, an old earth and
the big bang. So, it is no wonder that some of the recent popes have made unbiblical
statements supporting an old earth or evolution. These should be ignored.

A few questionable statements on origins

Although strongly young-earth creationist, I did find two questionable statements
in regard to origins in the book. Warkulwiz seems to leave open the possibility
of animal death before the Fall (p. 331), and that thorns, thistles, and poisonous
plants existed before the Fall but were created for a purpose beneficial to man
and that God gave Adam and Eve the ability to avoid danger (p. 302). Genesis 3 makes it clear that these came after the Fall.

The book is geared towards Catholics

The reader must remember that the intended audience is Catholic, not Protestant,
although Warkulwiz uses a lot of sources from the modern creationist movement, a
few of which are outdated. There is a good reason for this. Besides being Catholic
himself, there is no well-developed theology of creation in the Catholic Church
because a majority of theologians, scholars and scientists have embraced theistic
naturalism (p. xxxv). These intellectuals are probably more influenced by the supposed
long geological periods of uniformitarian geology than by evolution. The author
goes on to say that such long ages have had a numbing effect on the faith of the
youth, and God is pushed so far back in time to be barely visible or relevant (p.
9).

Protestant readers will of course find a few aspects of the book questionable, such
as his occasional quotes from the Apocrypha. Mariology is inserted in one or two
places. And of course, the book upholds Church tradition almost on par with the
Bible. But it can be said in his defense that many church traditions do uphold the
Scripture, which is usually the source of many traditions.

If the book is widely read and considered by Catholics, it should cause a renaissance
in their thinking about origins. I recommend the book also for Protestants who should
overlook the few instances where it deviates from strongly held biblical beliefs.
The book is overwhelmingly and delightfully a work of young-earth creationism.

‘Over the next two decades, he became the heretic his
critics had suspected’, Manier, J., The New Theology, Chicago Tribune,
20 January 2008; <chicagotribune.com/features/magazine/chi-mxa0120magevolutionjan20,0,2045786.story>.
Return to text.

Your subscription already exists. We have just sent you an email that will allow you to update your details.

Thanks for subscribing

Check your email!(If you haven’t received your first email within a few minutes, try checking your spam folder.)

You are leaving CREATION.com

We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.

Affiliated Sites

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America.